2005 Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines

To supplement yesterday’s audio episode, below is just a brief timeline with some links relating specifically to the audit capabilities inherent to current electronic voting equipment and current election codes.

7.8. Independent Verification Systems, which discusses Cast Vote Records

Link to VVSG1

1

In 2005 the Election Assistance Commissioner (EAC) passed the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines #1 (VVSG1), which contains section 7.8. Independent Verification Systems, which discusses Cast Vote Records.

2

Also in 2005, Minnesota and South Dakota put it in their election codes (state statute) that the VVSG1 must be followed with respect to certification of electronic voting equipment, as seen in Minnesota Statute 206.57 EXAMINATION OF NEW VOTING SYSTEMS Subdivision 3. Required Certification.

3

Numerous county auditors and county attorneys did not know about or denied their existence (almost all).

4

I emailed every county asking for them and received none, but many responses which showed ignorance of responsibility and the election codes on the books. Not one county auditor or attorney could name a statute that prevented their release.

I could sue every single one of them. Anyone who asked for these can. Even though law has changed in 2023 regarding the ballot image portion, which further shows incompetence of LEGISLATURE (and those writing laws) since the legislature has not only verified the CVRs’ existence in state statute but also has now UNCONSTITUTIONALLY prevented public government data related to elections from being made public, which simultaneously validates every man and woman who asked for these records, about whom hit-pieces were run across the country and in South Dakota and Minnesota, some with ties to the MNSOS. Oops.

Lawsuits have occurred in some places outside MN, and in Rice County within MN, although the courts made a corrupt decision recently on 66-CV-22-2022, not the first corrupt and incorrect-on-the-facts decision from Minnesota district or supreme courts, which shows the depth of problem.

5

Men and women in majority of counties sent correctly written public data requests for the cast vote records (with instruction on how to access them) for Dominion, ES&S, and Hart, the three primary vendors in Minnesota.

6

Only 1 auditor, in Fillmore County, produced them for 2020, months ahead of a select few counties which mostly produced partials.

7

Cast vote records can be manipulated. Just like any programmable element of a computerized system.

8

If you show me a cast vote record, it must be shown that it is the original and un-altered for it to provide evidence of a clean election. Simply providing this does not prove a clean election because the scanning technology, as far as I know, does NOT verify a legitimate ballot (fake and illegal ballots can enter the system).

9

Other audit logs, such as the tabulator logs (showing all entries, access, etc.) on a tabulator before, during, and after an election, are useful, but generally hidden from public view. Generally some bogus claim is made regarding security.

10

Source code is proprietary to vendors. That's all you really need to know. In Minnesota the chair of a major party can work with a third party and SOS to examine source code, but this has not been done.

Conclusion

These are just 10 points of fact that demonstrate ONE angle completely exposed during the last three years—the lack of adherence to digital audibility which is ALREADY enshrined in statutes, and HAS BEEN since 2005.

Meanwhile, we are still using almost all the same systems, with same vulnerabilities, and largely same people responsible, Secretaries of State, County Auditors, County Attorneys, Commissioners.

Can we have any elections with these same systems and people and expect the public to trust them, when the majority (according to Rasmussen polls) do not trust the overall process of elections, including process, mail-in ballots, electronic tabulation, electronic poll pads, electronic registration systems, etc. ?

Pay attention to Executive Order 13848.

Did Secretary Steve Simon go around the law in cooperation with the NAACP and LaRose through the Consent Decrees made by Judge Sarah Grewing, who should have recused herself from those cases? (Requirement for witness signatures for absentee mail-in ballots WAIVED, because of health emergency, LOL, and then 58% Minnesota ballots cast in 2020 election happened to be absentee or mail-in.)

Did Attorney General Keith Ellison enforce those election laws which were broken?

What was Executive Order 13848 put in place to do?

If “Biden” benefitted from an election without basic standards, why did he renew EO 13848 multiple times, which includes a national emergency? Why didn’t “Biden” let it expire?

This is another story, but consider that “Biden” was never properly sworn in, was “sworn in” at 11:47am, for just one fact… That ruse, the fact that more than likely an actor is playing “Biden”, is ALLOWED by the Law of War, on pg 326 and pg 334 of The United States Department of Defense Law of War Manual, fooled me and many of our adversaries, a trap laid and stepped into.

“Biden” is in quotes because he is neither our President nor Commander-in-Chief. It took me months of reading to figure this out. But Derek Johnson’s book on same is a nice supplement. I’m still waiting on my hard copy but the digital version is now up on Amazon.